The memory of a beloved pet inspires one couple's fight against injustice.

Thursday, February 8, 2018

In a glaring show of hypocrisy, Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain -- with a DUI conviction on his own record -- brings drunk-driving charges against others

Nicholas Jain

A Missouri prosecutor who has a drunk-driving conviction on his record is handling a DUI case that is set for trial in late March after the state court of appeals overturned a trial-court finding that suppressed evidence due to lack of probable cause.

All of this has strong connections to the bogus "assault of a law enforcement officer (LEO)" charges against my wife, Carol. The drunk-driving prosecutor, Nicholas Jain, has pressed the case against Carol, even though it clearly has lacked probable cause from the get-go. The trial judge in the Greene County DUI case is Margaret Holden Palmietto, who also is presiding over Carol's case.

Most important, however, is this: The DUI case, taken in light with Carol's case, reveals Nicholas Jain to be a monstrous hypocrite and a glaringly corrupt prosecutor. What's next in Missouri? Will the state start hiring rapists to prosecute rape cases? Maybe it can hire child molesters to prosecute child molestation cases? Given that Nicholas Jain is a drunk driver prosecuting drunk-driving case . . . well, it seems reasonable to expect the state to hire criminals to prosecute the crimes they have committed themselves.

The so-called "victim" of the push, Officer Jeremy Lynn, makes no statement in the PC Statement -- he provides zero evidence. He does admit in his incident report that he grabbed Carol -- initiating contact with her, not the other way around -- meaning Carol, as a matter of law in Missouri, is innocent. But Nicholas Jain doesn't seem to let the facts and law get in the way of pursuing dubious cases. (Lynn's incident report, which is not part of the PC Statement, is embedded at the end of this post.)

For now, the main issue in Carol's case is probable cause -- and anyone can read the PC Statement and see that Jeremy Lynn presents zero evidence of any misconduct on Carol's part.

State of Missouri v. Charles Hollis Roux also indicates Jain is pushing a DUI -- the very offense for which Jain served two years on probation -- which involves shaky probable cause. In fact, Judge Palmietto found at the trial level that all evidence was due to be dismissed for lack of probable cause. Did Patterson and Jain have the decency to take their lumps and move on to something else -- especially given their raging hypocrisy on the DUI issue?

Hell, no. They may be softies when it comes to drunk drivers in the Greene County prosecutor's office, but they play hard ass with everyday folks facing DUI charges. Here is the Missouri Court of Appeals' summary of its reversal of Judge Palmietto in the Roux case:

Charles Hollis Roux (“Defendant”) was charged with driving while intoxicated and thereafter filed a motion to suppress all the evidence in the case. The trial court granted that motion, and the State appeals pursuant to § 547.200.1(3) 1 raising two points of alleged error. In its first point, the State argues the trial court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and, in its second point, the State argues the trial court erred in refusing to admit the result of the portable breath test. The State's second point has merit, so we are compelled to reverse and remand the case. Moreover, as the admission of the test result will add additional relevant evidence for the trial court to consider on remand, we need not address the State's first point.

So, the trial-court judge -- the one who handled the Roux case from the outset -- found results of the portable breath test should not have been admitted. According to case.net, the case has been reset for a bench trial in Greene County on March 26, 2018.

Did the appellate court get it right? Well, we still are conducting research on that. But the trial court clearly found lack of probable cause -- and Patterson and Jain decided to play the hard ass when a regular citizen faces DUI charges.

That, of course, likely serves the political ambitions of the prosecutor and his flunky. But they probably don't want the public to know about their hypocrisy -- that they get all soft and gooey when it comes to a drunk driver working as a prosecutor.

42 comments:

Anonymous
said...

It figures that Jain handled DUI cases under his "general crimes" assignment, but it's interesting to see that you dug up proof of it. Hard to imagine a prosecutor's office looking worse than this one in Missouri.

Yes, that was the guy I call Mr. Apologist. His ability to apologize for the bad acts of cops, lawyers, landlords, and prosecutors knows no bounds. Actually, he's a very shallow and ineffective apologist, but his ability to TRY to excuse any bad behavior in officialdom is quite remarkable.

If I have read Mr. Jain's background accurately, it seems he's only in his 20s and already has a DUI. It also appears he has no genuine remorse about what he did. That suggests he's got a lot of time to re-offend, to get another DUI -- and my bet is that he winds up with several more.

Unless he dies first from being a fat fuck, I think you can count on Mr. Jain having a nice string of DUI's to his credit. Book it.

I think this could lead to reversal of every DUI case in which Mr. Jain has participated. A defendant, under the U.S. Constitution, is entitled to an impartial judge and an impartial prosecutor. It's part of due process. I believe there is strong grounds for questioning Mr. Jain's impartiality, which points to possible constitutional violations.

You raise a key point, @9:56. Yes, defendants are guaranteed an impartial tribunal, which includes impartial judges and prosecutors, under due process. I agree that Jain's participation in drunk-driving cases raises questions about impartiality of the tribunal.

Incredibly stupid for Dan Patterson to allow this to even be a question. I could see a lot of his office's work being reversed because of Jain's participation as a drunk driver.

LS:I assume you publish only a small portion of the troll comments you receive? If that's the case, you likely see way more of the comments than we see as readers?

I see enough to conclude that you likely have been targeted by paid, professional trolls. I don't use the term "professional" in any sort of positive way. But if you read these troll comments, you can tell they have a threadbare knowledge of the issues at play. You've noted that they tend to get the simplest facts wrong -- over and over -- and they can't even begin to grasp legal concepts. All of that is a sign that these people are assigned to harass you by some fairly powerful entity. Harassment and intimidation are their goals, and that's it. They aren't capable of anything else.

You've noted the likelihood that Ashley Madison trolls are behind some of this, especially the attack on your Scribd account. This also smells a lot like the activity of Roger Stone, or someone associated with him -- and of course, he's aligned with Trump. If Stone is involved, it's a sign that your reporting on events in Alabama -- especially those tied to Jeff Sessions, Riley, Canary, Swatek, etc. -- are of major concern to the Trumpistas.

Just my two cents: I think you are being targeted by an orchestrated batch of lowlife trolls. Sad that such people don't have something constructive to do with their lives. Keep up the good reporting, though. You are pissing them off big time, and it's wonderful to see.

Yes, I publish maybe 5 percent of the troll comments, at most. And I publish those only because I think it's instructive for legit readers to see some of the troll garbage that passes through here. Most of the troll stuff goes straight into my spam folder, but you've seen enough to correctly conclude that a fair amount of it is from paid harassers. And you are right on target about the complete lack of knowledge from most of these whack jobs. They have the mindset of a 5-year-old, and I'm sorry for insulting 5-year-olds.

I've written before about signs that Roger Stone is leading attacks on us, so I think you likely are on target about that. A fair number of the trolls present signs that they are localized -- in Missouri or Alabama, for example. But I also see signs that their garbage is generated from fake accounts in places like Logansville, GA, and Ephrata, PA.

BTW, love your term "white boy bitches." That's a classic and it describes these cretins to a "T." Here is the post I did earlier on Roger Stone:

Roger Stone is a perv and a homo. The white-boy bitches who follow him also are pervs and homos. That's why they become paid trolls. They are total losers with women, and they are filled with self hatred over their status as pervs and homos. They are losers, period, so trolling seems like an attractive option for them -- especially since they have no other options.

A classic example is the clown I call Mr. Apologist, who likely is a lawyer connected to Carol's case here in Springfield, MO. The guy is a total numb skull. He claims Officer Jeremy Lynn said Carol pushed him in the Probable Cause Statement, but there is nothing from Lynn in the PC Statement. Zero. But this turd can't grasp that.

The only statement from Lynn is in his incident report, which is not part of the Probable Cause Statement. Lynn admits he initiated contact with Carol, by grabbing her, which means she is innocent, under the law, even according to the "victim."

Bottom line: Not one word from Jeremy Lynn in the probable cause statement and not one word from any named accuser regarding an alleged push. Hence, there was no probable cause to arrest Carol, much less to prosecute her.

This could not be more clear -- just like it's clear that the UAB HR woman said I was targeted because of my blog -- but Mr. Apologist and his brethren cannot grasp that. Of course, as you note, they aren't about trying to understand the case. They are all about harassment because my reporting threatens their little stack of toys.

Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars could go down the drain because of reversals on DUI cases in which Nicholas Jain was involved. This should make Missouri taxpayers smile. It also should prove that Dan Patterson is a corrupt, useless a-hole of a prosecutor.

Yep, the fat, drunk guy who spent two years on probation for a DUI now tries his damnedest to hang other people with drunk-driving charges -- even when, as in the Roux case, there is questionable probable cause.

Hypocrisy doesn't get much worse than that. And Jain also displays an utter lack of moral fiber. Fits the classic profile of a prosecutor.

Seems pretty clear that the trolling white-boy bitches here are so-called "conservatives." They tout "family values" and vote for Donald Trump, probably the most hedonistic SOB to ever run for president. Trump digs golden showers in Russia, but that's fine with the white-boy bitches.

They surely deplore drunk driving, but they excuse and make apologies for it when it shows up on one of their prosecutorial types.

They tout their manliness and then suck off at the alter of a perv/homo like Roger Stone.

The white-boy bitches are showing their racism. You think they would be standing up for Nicholas Jain if he were black? Hell, no. But he's part of the white-boy bitch train, so they make every excuse under the sun.

Here's why the white-boy bitches have released the trolls on Legal Schnauzer. Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions are about to go down on the national stage. Luther Strange and Richard Shelby are going down in the Birmingham Superfund case. Gary Palmer is going down in the Congressional sex scandal. In Missouri, Gov. Eric Greitens is going down in a sex scandal and Sheriff Jim Arnott is under investigation by the state auditor.

The white-boy bitches are foolish enough to think they can squelch the voice of Legal Schnauzer with harassment and trolling. Silly, silly bitches. Schnauzer is way smarter than you, and way tougher than you. His voice isn't going anywhere. You know that, so you've upped your childish attacks. Wasting your time, bitches.

The earth is about to fall out from under the white-boy bitches. No wonder they are squealing like little piggies.

Enjoy what little time you have left, white-boy bitches. Your days are numbered -- and you know it.

The white-boy bitches love a big, fat, drunk tub of lard like Nicholas Jain because they know he's corrupt and tilts the table in their favor.

That's why the white-boy bitches love them some corrupt Russians; Putin and the boys have zero respect for the U.S. constitution, and that's how the white-boy bitches like it. The last thing they want is a justice system that presents a level playing field.

The white-boy bitches know they can't compete unless they have help from fat, drunk, frat boys like Nicholas Jain.

Hey LS - do you realize you have Carol's SSN posted on the Green County Report. It's not redacted. I'm sure you know that, just wanted to make sure. Take it from me that identity theft is a bitch to overcome - lot of time and money

No, I did not realize the Greene County Sheriff's Office (GCSO) had put Carol's unredacted SSN on their incident report. Thanks for calling it to my attention. This could be an additional important ground for suing the corrupt sheriff and his cronies in federal court -- not to mention anyone who tries to make unlawful use of this information.tThe GCSO never had probable cause to arrest Carol -- much less prosecute her -- and now they have plastered her SSN in the public record for anyone to see. Talk about negligence. They are going to be looking at major damages if someone attempts identity theft on Carol.

The incident report you published is not available online, and it is redacted when requested by members of the press or general public. Which probably y'all or your lawyer are the only persons who have ever requested a copy.

The would not redact for Carol or Carols lawyer or spouse.

So why did you publish this without removing her personal information?

He obtained and published the incident report without redacting personal information.

There is no such document available online through official channels, and incident reports are not usually made available for the general public to inspect either in person or any official online source. No legitimate press source would ever publish a SS number from an incident report.

Remember the old song "Everybody Plays the Fool"? Well, you play the fool exceptionally well. Who put Carol's SSN on an official document that is available to public? The GCSO did. What grounds did the GCSO have for putting Carol's SSN on the document? None. What grounds did the GCSO have for arresting Carol? None, not the slightest hint of probable cause.

You don't know if the document is available through official channels or not. I don't know either at the moment, but I intend to find out, and I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Any journalist is entitled to publish a public record, and state law almost certainly places the burden on state entities to make sure they don't publish personal identifiers, such as SSNs.

I know this for sure: Anyone who attempts to screw around with Carol's personal information -- in a case utterly lacking probable cause -- will wish he hadn't. And the GCSO will wish it had done a better job of protecting the personal information of someone they falsely arrested.

BTW, "Everybody Plays the Fool" is a classic R&B tune, and here it is from the classic 70s --

You are a fool, because the copy you got would be un redacted, but it would not be given to the general public un redacted. I sent you a quote from the statute concerning incident reports.

You,YOU, published it in a publicly viewable place. You are the one being recless and careless, and it's all of a piece with your generally selfish handling of your wife's affairs. You are not taking care of her or protecting her. I'm pretty sure her most recent arrest warrant for failure to appear is down to you. And why will you not get her a lawyer to help her deal with that warrant? The must be some clinic for the indigent that can help her with a failure to appear warrant.

Anyone can order a non-closed incident report as a public document under Missouri law, but while you and Carol and your lawyer would be provided an un redacted copy, the general public would get a redacted copy.

Also you are the one who has published it in a public forum, and nobody made you do that. If you were caring about your wife's sensitive personal information, you would have redacted it yourself before putting it on your blog. You are to blame.

You seem a bit pissed that I've run the incident reports from various officers. Is that because it messes with your agenda? One, it shows Jeremy Lynn admitting that he initiated contact with Carol, not the other way around -- and that means there never was probable cause against Carol from the outset. Also the incident reports show all the exculpatory material that was unlawfully left out of the Probable Cause Statement. Plus, it reveals the officers asinine statements about Carol breaking her own arm.

All of those incident reports make your beloved coppers look extremely bad, and it shows them to be liars under oath, which even you know is a crime.

Couple of questions: Naturally, you blame me for everything involving Carol's SSN, while you work up one apology after another for fat, drunk-driving prosecutor Nicholas Jain. No surprise there because that is your SOP -- and anyone who reads your comments knows you have zero credibility. But . . .

(1) Who was it that caused Carol to be arrested (twice) without probable cause? And you can spare me your usual bullshit about Jeremy Lynn, because he doesn't make a single statement in the PC Statement. He provides no information that could be used in making a determination about Carol's arrest. And the only information in his report is that he caused contact with Carol, meaning there never was any probable cause for her arrest. But again, who caused Carol to be falsely arrested and imprisoned? That's easy: It's the GCSO.

(2) Who caused an unredacted incident report to be sent to me -- without providing any notice that Carol's SSN even was in there? What is the purpose of putting her SSN in there, especially for someone who has not been found guilty of anything, zilch. If you don't recognize negligence here, than you truly are blind as a bat.

Oh, here is another likely reason you are pissed. You (Craig Lowther) and landlord Trent Cowherd are responsible for our unlawful eviction, which led to Carol's broken arm and false arrest. I suspect that means Lowther and Cowherd could be liable for significant damages if anyone conducts identity theft against Carol. It's YOUR liability, Buster Brown.

You are seeing greenbacks flying out the door. No wonder your sphincter is aquiver.

The white-boy bitches are getting more desperate with each passing day. They now are blaming YOU because the MISSOURI SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT released an unredacted report that included Carol's SSN? Hah, what jokesters these cats are? Who prepared the doc with Carol's SSN on it? The sheriff did. Who released it with the SSN unredacted? The sheriff did.

Pretty clear who is liable here. But the white-boy bitches will continue to bitch and squirm. That's all they can do.

do these people get paid on a piece work basis, for the trials? its just they seem to really like trials. Do private prisons house the convicted in this area?

It would appear the system goes to a lot of trouble to convict. Are they making money out of this?

What a waste of resources. Don't they have an opioid crisis in the U.S.A.? Wouldn't it be better to spend money on that in the area than re trying cases when they could do something else or is there no something else in the state? Its all so weird.

Ok. I'm lost. Why does it matter that Jain had a DUI conviction? How does this make it wrong for him to prosecute people for DUI? I'm in another state and at least round here this doesn't seem like a disqualification.

You'd be fine with a rapist prosecuting rape cases or a domestic abuser prosecuting domestic abuse cases? Seriously. If you need help figuring this stuff out, I'd say you really are lost and probably never will be found.

It's just too much to expect that prosecutors in postmodern America not have criminal records?